Post your thoughts and ideas here.

how quickly will trump give in to their demands and try to pretend its a win for HIM?

talks all this shit about "the deep state" meanwhile collaborating with them.

The Republicans shouldn't be allowed to have power.

That was always a concern of mine moving back to San Antonio.
I had a thought exercise before we moved which location DC or San Antonio would be a more likely target.
Should’ve gone to Denver.
And yes this is with the understanding that much of America’s military might is aboard but that doesn’t make strategic distant attacks of retaliation not a possibility.

this is just a guess though.

i would not rule out some attack on a target in the US though.

either way not good.

on a domestic milltary base by an official member of the military of a foreign nation.

and it was out of the news in less than a week with zero fearmongering and relatively little acknowledgement from the administration or the media.

all because the foreign country was saudi arabia and trump doesnt wanna rock that boat.

as i was typing my previous reply it came to mind. it was reported as just a soldier at first then they reported it was actually a terrorist attack right?

this one?
https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/09/us/pensacola-naval-station-shooting-monday/index.html

Living near Offut Air Force Base and STRATCOM, I can't lie that the rise of terror and constant threats of immediate war don't have me slightly nervous at all times that something really terrible could happen here, even if I know deep down the chances of anything specifically happening to that compound are exceptionally small.

~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

San Diego is like the 3 or 4th place that will get nuked in World War 3 (DC, New York, and Colorado Springs before us) - we got six large military bases (and another 10? smaller ones) in the county.

We're on the coast and near a border.

They're hitting here before the middle of Texas - don't get paranoid.

None of us have a single reason to be confident of our safety.

...all of NYC and the surrounding area is fucked forever

for now

Even your own family. It's really exhausting. Fuck American Imperialism. A lot of cities will have protests and political education tomorrow afternoon. Come out if you can.

Maybe it's not our fight?

Not all Muslims are arab. Like not even close. Persians aren't even arab. And not all forms of slavery are comparable to chattle slavery. If you use your same logic, then do you also feel the same, indiscriminate way about current Africans because their ancestors waged war and sold other Africans to white slavers?

Even those Africans that adopted Islam then engaged in selling Africans?

I know there are moderate Muslims of many ethnic backgrounds but at it's base with just looking at the doctrine's roots it appears no different than Catholicism and post temple (70AD) Judaism in being a catalyst for chattel slavery of Africans

I'm also not saying this airstrike was the right course of action or anyone deserved to lose their life due to their beliefs and or ethnicity

in that the confluence in 16th century merchantalism and trans-atlantic shipping played a far greater role in the specific system of slavery referred to as chattel (as opposed to earlier forms of slavery and fiefdom). In short, there was now a lot of sugar cane to be grown and cotton to be processed on a scale that depended on a certain type of slave labor that just didnt exist before the discovery of the New World.

As for Islam being used as a basis for slavery...I wouldn't know, since I am not a historian. Based on the following source, it was moreso used as a basis for "moderating" existing forms of slavery:

"Islam's approach to slavery added the idea that freedom was the natural state of affairs for human beings and in line with this it limited the opportunities to enslave people, commended the freeing of slaves and regulated the way slaves were treated:

Islam greatly limited those who could be enslaved and under what circumstances (although these restrictions were often evaded)

Islam treated slaves as human beings as well as property

Islam banned the mistreatment of slaves - indeed the tradition repeatedly stresses the importance of treating slaves with kindness and compassion

Islam allowed slaves to achieve their freedom and made freeing slaves a virtuous act

Islam barred Muslims from enslaving other Muslims

But the essential nature of slavery remained the same under Islam, as elsewhere. It involved serious breaches of human rights and however well they were treated, the slaves still had restricted freedom; and, when the law was not obeyed, their lives could be very unpleasant."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

But I was raised muslim and the one thing I always admired about islam in America was how truly diverse it is. Go to any musjid in a major city and you will see every shade of brown and black sitting together on the floor and standing shoulder to shoulder to pray. Now does that mean muslim immigrants and racist/prejudice against Blacks...hell no. But to say they or their ancestors-- as opposed to europeans-- were somehow the architects of chattel slavery (or colonialism) sounds false to me.

BTW, you might be interested in the life of Bilal ibn Rabah, who is usually always bought up in discussions of slavery and the Prophet Muhammad.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_ibn_Rabah

>in that the confluence in 16th century merchantalism and
>trans-atlantic shipping played a far greater role in the
>specific system of slavery referred to as chattel (as opposed
>to earlier forms of slavery and fiefdom).

The Arab slave trade across the Sahara was chattle slavery. The women were used for sex slavery and the men castrated and or put to work on sugar plantations (and other forms of labor) in what is now modern day Iraq. The descendants of these Africans still live in severe segregation and oppression in Iraq. This was centuries before the Europeans came and after the Islamic conquest of North Africa. Only after Europe could no longer easily obtain European slaves from the slavic regions (which means slave) due to the silk road collapsing did they turn to Africa and one must wonder how they learned of this opportunity as there was much interaction between Arab and European empires during the crusades via the Knights Templar, but I digress.


In short, there was
>now a lot of sugar cane to be grown and cotton to be processed
>on a scale that depended on a certain type of slave labor that
>just didnt exist before the discovery of the New World.

The reply above shows this slavery did in fact exist prior to the trans atlantic trade which many catholic and post temple (European) Jews engaged in with much financial success. In fact after the collapse of the Silk Road obtaining sugar from northeast Africa was perhaps very costly

>As for Islam being used as a basis for slavery...I wouldn't
>know, since I am not a historian. Based on the following
>source, it was moreso used as a basis for "moderating"
>existing forms of slavery:

>"Islam's approach to slavery added the idea that freedom was
>the natural state of affairs for human beings and in line with
>this it limited the opportunities to enslave people, commended
>the freeing of slaves and regulated the way slaves were
>treated:

First we must acknowledge that victors write history

>Islam greatly limited those who could be enslaved and under
>what circumstances (although these restrictions were often
>evaded)

Yes it limited it to those who did not follow Islam outside of Arab lands (which is in sharp contrast to the message of the prophet we call Yahshua). Had Mansa Musa not adopted Islam we can rest assured he and his people would have been targets for chattel enslavement

>Islam treated slaves as human beings as well as property

It can not be both ways. The myriad deaths due to attempted castrations (which is mutilation), sex enslavement of African women, and inhumane treatment of those marched across the sahara clearly illustrates there was little to no humane treatment. In addition were that true the isolated descendants of those trafficked to Iraq would have long been absorbed into the cultural fabric of the region

>Islam banned the mistreatment of slaves - indeed the tradition
>repeatedly stresses the importance of treating slaves with
>kindness and compassion

This appears to be historically inaccurate:
"in the early 20th century (post World War I), slavery was gradually outlawed and suppressed in Muslim lands, largely due to pressure exerted by Western nations such as Britain and France. For example, Saudi Arabia and Yemen only abolished slavery in 1962 under pressure from Britain; Oman followed suit in 1970, and Mauritania in 1905, 1981, and again in August 2007."

We also know slavery is still ongoing in both that region and ours via the prison system (in the US)

Also we can easily read about how African slaves were treated then and how their descendants are treated now. Which is in sharp contrast to any kindness or compassion

>Islam allowed slaves to achieve their freedom and made freeing
>slaves a virtuous act

Yahshua (Jesus) was preaching this well before Muhammad was born and we know he admittedly borrowed heavily from his ministry

>Islam barred Muslims from enslaving other Muslims

Right so if Mansa Musa (for example) converts to Islam he is spared enslavement and gets access to white slaves (among other things) which were the most prized.

>But the essential nature of slavery remained the same under
>Islam, as elsewhere. It involved serious breaches of human
>rights and however well they were treated, the slaves still
>had restricted freedom; and, when the law was not obeyed,
>their lives could be very unpleasant."
>
>https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtml

Whatever a trees roots are that will be how it's fruit tastes

>But I was raised muslim and the one thing I always admired
>about islam in America was how truly diverse it is. Go to any
>musjid in a major city and you will see every shade of brown
>and black sitting together on the floor and standing shoulder
>to shoulder to pray. Now does that mean muslim immigrants and
>racist/prejudice against Blacks...hell no. But to say they or
>their ancestors-- as opposed to europeans-- were somehow the
>architects of chattel slavery (or colonialism) sounds false to
>me.

It's historic fact that the Arabs did it equal to or better than the Europeans. Did you know the book from which Aladdin comes also has the perhaps the first portrayal of the overly sexualized black man? Also it seems to appear that even the knowledge of Africa as a place for procurement of slaves was learned from the empires that existed before the collapse of the silk road and during the crusades via the Knights Templar as European Architecture, mathematics, science etc. took a huge leap forward during that time.


>BTW, you might be interested in the life of Bilal ibn Rabah,
>who is usually always bought up in discussions of slavery and
>the Prophet Muhammad.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilal_ibn_Rabah
>

Thank you I'll look into it.

experience from non-Muslim black folks. If anyone knows about Arab anti-blackness, it's black Muslims. We don't need the extra shade from other black folks.

That goes for all systems that have built their wealth in part on the suffering of those like us

I'm sure you know Muhammad destroyed every false idol in Mecca except for one

I think to take the focus off the impeachment.

for democracy. much like a lot of other countries right now.

there is a lot of long term strategic/diplomatic value in america aligning with these pro-democracy movements.

but now after this shit...damn near all iraqis are protesting this assassination. so it unified some folks who were just at odds literally a day ago.

>but now after this shit...damn near all iraqis are protesting
>this assassination. so it unified some folks who were just at
>odds literally a day ago.

A lot of Iraqis are actually celebrating the assassination because Soleimani was no friend of the Iraqi people. His militias were largely responsible for instilling chaos in Iraq after ISIS was ousted - and most Iraqis report that Iranian influence in Iraq has been toxic AF. The incompetence of the Iraqi government only compounds the problem. But of course - none of this means the Iraqis want to see more U.S. bombs destroy its airports and cities. They basically want everyone out: Iran, U.S., Saudi Arabia et. al.

What nobody is reporting on or bothering to mention is that Soleimani also was instrumental in stomping out ISIS in both Syria & Iraq - and countering insurgent Saudi extremist groups that were responsible for the rise of al-qaeda & ISIS. So it's messy as could be.

But one thing's for sure: This unconstitutional strike was an act of war - not authorized by Congress; not debated on or approved by the people - and an egregious abuse of Executive Powers.


-->

>But one thing's for sure: This unconstitutional strike was an
>act of war - not authorized by Congress; not debated on or
>approved by the people - and an egregious abuse of Executive
>Powers.

Congress could invoke the War Powers Resolution, immediately call for an emergency vote (to serve its constitutional duty) - and force a democratic process prior to all-out war.

Will they? Highly unlikely as there's been a bi-partisan consensus to allow these Executive military actions to take place. Generally, Congress has shirked its duty on these matters. Example: Obama went to Congress and told them to send him a signed legislative bill authorizing him to exert military force in Syria (which was the right thing to do). Congress opted not to rise to that duty because most are afraid of re-election consequences, are bought off by MIC/Defense money, or simply are apathetic about U.S. imperialism (or all of the above).

Even worse, We have tried to impeach Trump because of a phone-call. He just committed an actual war crime. It's illegal based on international law and our own constitutional law - yet we wanted to go after him for a relatively weak charge in comparison.

thanks Vex.

>Even worse, We have tried to impeach Trump because of a
>phone-call. He just committed an actual war crime. It's
>illegal based on international law and our own constitutional
>law - yet we wanted to go after him for a relatively weak
>charge in comparison.

Don't regurgitate right-wing talking points and flat-out mischaracterize the situation to lay cover for Tulsi.

1. Trump WAS impeached.

2. He was not impeached because of a phone call. You know this. Yet you are literally regurgitating word-for-word Doug Collins' lie from the hearings.

3. You purposefully set up a false dilemma. There was no choice between Trump being impeached for Abuse of Power AND Obstruction of Justice vs. Suleimani assassination. He was impeached for a crimes he committed. He just chose to commit more crimes (undoubtedly to distract from the fact he was impeached and the fact that more evidence of the extent of the abuse of power for which he was impeached come forward every day). To make it seem like 'well he committed a war crime but we chose to impeach him over a phone call' instead is disgusting.

4. Let's play out your false dilemma. So he should be impeached for this right? How's that gonna play in the Senate? That was originally your issue w/ the impeachment was that the Senate was going to shoot it down. They'd do the exact same thing with this.

Trump won't be removed from office and he'll be acquitted in the Senate within days once the Articles are delivered to the Senate.

This is the big leagues - and there are no moral victories. What has impeaching accomplished? A cool discussion in a Poli-Sci graduate course? Trump will remain in office and the consensus has been that his numbers have only increased (albeit slightly) since Impeachment was launched.

Because we went after him *only* for the Ukraine call (which I have stated is impeachable in itself, but just a drop in the bucket compared to his other actions) - we can't even argue as to his continued violation of the War Powers Resolution and other more significant impeachable offenses. Further, Trump just committed arguably the most reckless act of his presidency in "ordering" the Soleimani assassination, so you certainly can't argue that being impeached in Congress has moderated his behavior in any way.

The last people I'm putting faith in to counter Trumpism are Pelosi and McConnell.

-->

and then came back with 'see you missed the point'

Oh, and if his impeachment was a non-issue and the reports coming out recently about just how fucking illegal he did was didn't matter he wouldn't have just illegally assassinated Suleiman.

My guess is that it won't age well for those most concerned with thwarting Trumpism.

>Oh, and if his impeachment was a non-issue and the reports
>coming out recently about just how fucking illegal he did was
>didn't matter he wouldn't have just illegally assassinated
>Suleiman.

While I think impeachment is more than just a non-issue, the substance of the impeachment itself (the Ukraine call) is a fraction of the absurdity of Trump's other offenses (namely his violation of the War Powers Resolutions and other related war crimes) - so there could've been far more substantive rebukes and articles levied at him for Impeachment that would be far more helpful - especially right now.

I'm not on board for just putting an asterisk next to this President's name in the history books. Dems have to stop showing up to political fights with covered plates.


-->

I don’t think Vex is messing around with truth.

do YOU think he’ll be impeached?

smh

I hate that you never take the time to hear someone with a different perspective. All he’s saying is what they got him on won’t be enough to impeach him.

stay off my back nigga...

>I hate that you never take the time to hear someone with a
>different perspective. All he’s saying is what they got him
>on won’t be enough to impeach him.
>

It’s 2020 you don’t need another decade to figure this out. You are struggling with something that is easy.. Damn keep coming into threads with ridiculous takes.

>stay off my back nigga...

Shut up if you can’t handle the discussion log off.

usually, I don’t engage suckas lol

I’m very capable of having a discussion with folks when there’s disagreement. I think we need to hear people out, ask questions before injecting our personal feelings.

but, yeah...
do you
reply to my replies
call me names
your opinion of me doesn’t matter
as I do not respect you...

Second, Vex has a pattern of doing this. In fact, he just did it in the impeachment post.

What disgusts me is he is willfully misrepresenting facts about the impeachment (including the fact of impeachment itself) to someone who asked for information and insight into the situation. He's doing the EXACT same thing that the Republicans did during the impeachment trial and using the EXACT same language to do it.

You asked for an assessment of a situation to learn more about it. I commend that as that is increasingly rare here and online. Problem is Vex, who is a dyed-in-the-wool Tulsi supporter (he's got the lei to prove it) has chosen to misrepresent the situation because doing so helps makes Tulsi's 'Present' vote and call for censure on the eve of the House impeachment vote look 'better.'

That's precisely how misinformation is spread. I care about people too much to let someone sit up here and lie to them to further their bullshit agenda.

He's been called out repeatedly and when he gets his card pulled he packs up the goalposts and moves them to the next spot as he did in his reply to me.

He knows: 1. Trump was impeached. 2. Trump wasn't just impeached over a phone call 3. The democrats didn't choose to impeach Trump over 'a phone call' instead of for the assassination of Suleiman as the latter hadn't happened yet.

Those are facts. If someone chooses to misrepresent the most basic facts why would I engage them in any further discussion on the topic? You don't get to make up a bunch of shit and then when called out say 'But what about the Senate tho?!'

1. Trump has been impeached by the House - but will be acquitted by the Senate. This isn't hard. It's really sad how many people refuse to take the time to understand the procedural process of impeachment and its sequential journey through the House *and* the Senate.

2. Disagreeing with the efficacy of this impeachment trial (including an analysis of what actual articles of impeachment were presented) is not "misinformation" - it's called debate - something you're too fragile to engage in without getting so irrationally upset that you can't even make a cogent point absent of insult.

3. I've been very clear from day one that I support Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders in this presidential primary. I know that offends your sensibilities as you cape for the Establishment. You'll be ok though.

4. You claim you won't "engage" with me yet you follow me around in every post posting sophomoric insults.

Be better tomorrow.

-->

>1. Trump has been impeached by the House - but will be
>acquitted by the Senate. This isn't hard. It's really sad how
>many people refuse to take the time to understand the
>procedural process of impeachment and its sequential journey
>through the House *and* the Senate.

I know how the procedure works. That's why I said he was impeached. You know too. So you lied.

>
>2. Disagreeing with the efficacy of this impeachment trial
>(including an analysis of what actual articles of impeachment
>were presented) is not "misinformation" - it's called debate -
>something you're too fragile to engage in without getting so
>irrationally upset that you can't even make a cogent point
>absent of insult.
>

Notice I've taken little to no issue with with you disagreeing with the efficacy of the impeachment. I have taken issue with your mischaracterization of basic facts. If you were actually interested in debate you wouldn't do that. But you aren't.

>3. I've been very clear from day one that I support Tulsi
>Gabbard and Bernie Sanders in this presidential primary. I
>know that offends your sensibilities as you cape for the
>Establishment. You'll be ok though.
>

No, I have no issue with supporting Gabbard. I can see why someone like you would like someone like her.

Just remember, you don't have to lie to kick it.


>4. You claim you won't "engage" with me yet you follow me
>around in every post posting sophomoric insults.
>
>Be better tomorrow.

The irony, it's killing me.

in the end it won’t go anywhere. you have to agree with that, right?

It's clear the Republicans still will do literally anything to protect the president. They've said as much, they've shown as much and at this point they have to. In for a penny, in for a pound. But at the end of the day, they will save themselves if they have to. The key is getting them to where they have to make that choice.

But new information about the extent of Trump and his team's wrongdoing w/ Ukraine is getting revealed on nearly a daily basis. The House Intel Cmte is about to get Lev Parnas' evidence from his SDNY case.

Yes, the deck is stacked but it's not all doom and gloom. Also, remember support/don't support for impeachment has flipped positively since the starting of the inquiry.

If he wasn't concerned he wouldn't have illegally STARTED A WAR with Iran of all countries (and potentially a world war).

You know it's bad because they can't even get their fucking stories straight as to why they started this shit. Was it imminent terror attacks? Was it he was an evil doer and killer? Was it 9/11?(To which America was like, "Sit down, man". You know its bad when that dog won't hunt) Did he kill JR?

Americans haven't even started dying yet, the only thing that's been hacked is a book depository. Watch what happens when shit gets real.

And as of tonight he's literally threatening war crimes.

Would any of this be happening if he thought he was just gonna George Jefferson walk on this?

many Americans believe the formality of the impeachment won’t result in him not being removed from office. Which would make the entire process moot and why some say he wasn’t impeached. Now that we’re headed for a possible war, impeachment isn’t being talked about...

Should the 'do nothing Democrats' have not impeached? What then? Pin their hopes on an election that president was impeached for trying to rig? With this bunch of candidates? Try and mobilize for congressional and senate elections on the platform of 'Hey, at least we didn't bother impeaching him?'

Or should they make the House Republicans and later the Senate Republicans have to draw down and defend and indefensible position and stake their political future on it? A position that is increasingly unpopular. Use it as an opportunity to mobilize and energize their base? Push Senators that are in tight races to outwardly state they are willing to betray their country? Allow more and more evidence to come to light of just how criminal this whole endeavor was? Allow the pressure to make him make more and sloppier mistakes?

No one is talking about impeachment right now precisely because Trump and his apocalyptic Christian crony conmen are trying to start a war to get out of the hot seat. So instead people are talking about how he's on the verge of starting a war as a way to take the heat off himself. Ok. Bang-up job, Donald.

His team can't even sell it because after Iraq and Afghanistan no one is buying plus they are fucking morons. Just wait until Americans start dying.

I’m now downplaying what they did do just that I’m fearful that it won’t result in him being removed. Like, I work with a huge trump supporter and for the life of me I can’t understand why. Even, people bring ok with him not offering up evidence that the Iranian General was plotting something.

It’s scary...

>I’m now downplaying what they did do just that I’m
>fearful that it won’t result in him being removed.

he probably won't be removed.
these people are craven cowards and apparently beholden to party over country
given that.... it seems there's two camps in the impeachment discussion
those who think that unless it results in the senate voting to impeach...
it's not worth doing, regardless of the extent of the president's criminality
the second camp argues that impeachment is a process of holding the presidency accountable
letting *this* president go scott-free would mean that the president is above the law
that would set a dangerous precedent
im in the latter camp.
i fully well understand that at the moment... because this administration does not give a fuck about the law
and neither do republicans
there doesn't look like any meaningful consequences will come from this
but as a previous poster said.... i want them to go on record as essentially stating that the laws do not matter
regardless of what else is coming down the pike
(and i think there will be years of revelations- we dont know what this administration is hiding that is yet to be discovered)
perhaps they will pay a price at the ballot box (who knows)
but i'd rather *something* than *nothing*

now as to this current situation. shit. i dont even know what to think
this administration has essentially acted as tho congress is a meaningless institution
and republicans are lining up in tandem
its quite something.
republicans are trash

>he probably won't be removed.

There is more likelihood of Trump & Rouhani playing golf at Mar-a-Lago than there is of the McConnell Senate voting to remove Trump from office. The Senate will acquit him within days.

>it seems there's two camps in the impeachment
>discussion
>those who think that unless it results in the senate voting to
>impeach...
>it's not worth doing, regardless of the extent of the
>president's criminality
>the second camp argues that impeachment is a process of
>holding the presidency accountable
>letting *this* president go scott-free would mean that the
>president is above the law
>that would set a dangerous precedent
>im in the latter camp.

This is an over-simplification as I (and many others) are in neither of those camps.

I and many others have said that this President *been* should've been impeached. But if we're going to issue articles of impeachment - go *all in*. Pelosi and the Dem leaders decided to issue articles of impeachment on some of the weaker offenses of this President - wholly ignoring his war crimes and violations of the War Powers Resolution and other constitutional improprieties.

Had they gone all in and issued articles that detail his most egregious crimes and lawlessness (like veto'ing the rare bi-partisan condemnation of U.S. support for the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen, for example) - then we'd be in a much better place right now - *especially* now given the predictable trajectory of this President where most knew he'd eventually commit an act of war to goad Iran without Congressional authorization.

That we wholly ignored this when proposing impeachment was gross incompetence and a lack of courage and vision by the Democratic leadership - which isn't surprising but no less enraging.




-->

>>he probably won't be removed.
>
>There is more likelihood of Trump & Rouhani playing golf at
>Mar-a-Lago than there is of the McConnell Senate voting to
>remove Trump from office. The Senate will acquit him within
>days.

1. You are contradicting yourself. You claim it with "certainty", then speak about likelihood. Pick 1.

Its highly unlikely that the Senate will vote to remove him, but no one can be 100% certain of it.


>That we wholly ignored this when proposing impeachment was
>gross incompetence and a lack of courage and vision by the
>Democratic leadership - which isn't surprising but no less
>enraging.

You were not "in the room where it happened" therefore you cannot speak to whether or not other things were "ignored"...that's an assumption.

It's more likely they drew articles for what they had evidence for, what the American people could unilaterally get behind.etc...Pelosi knows her audience.

They also likely reserved other articles to potentially impeach him again since the Don McGhann lawsuit is still pending regarding Obstruction of Justice

notice, I'm not assuming but guessing. Ultimately, none of us know Pelosi's strategy because she smartly keeps it close to the vest.


d

Unilateral decision-making when it comes to acts of war, and Executive privilege abuses as it pertains to hiding behind "intelligence" when committing acts of war.

The reason that Pelosi and Dem leadership didn't include violations of the War Powers Resolutions and war crimes in their articles of impeachment is because the vast majority of Democrats side with the President on issues of war, defense spending, and American militarism.

Over 180 House Dems voted to approve Trump's NDAA $738 billion military bill which authorizes him to take unilateral action (like the one he just took vs. Iran).

Of the 2020 candidates - only Bernie Sanders & Tulsi Gabbard have voted against the $738 billion Trump military spending bill - and all three of the President’s defense authorization bills.

The reason that they didn't include an article of impeachment regarding these issues is because there's essentially a bi-partisan consensus that provides deference to this Administration when it comes to war powers.

And you're right - nobody can know with exactitude whether the Senate will acquit Trump. We also don't know who will the NBA title this year. It may be the Pelicans - you never know. But I wouldn't expend any political capital on that wholly improbable possibility.


-->

-->

>Of the 2020 candidates - only Bernie Sanders & Tulsi Gabbard
>have voted against the $738 billion Trump military spending
>bill - and all three of the President’s defense
>authorization bills.
>

Source?

>
>>Of the 2020 candidates - only Bernie Sanders & Tulsi Gabbard
>>have voted against the $738 billion Trump military spending
>>bill - and all three of the President’s defense
>>authorization bills.
>>
>
>Source?

Bruh, all you have to do is conduct a simple google search to look at their respective votes on Trump's defense spending bills. This ain't hard.

-->

So I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt this time.

>>he probably won't be removed.
>
>There is more likelihood of Trump & Rouhani playing golf at
>Mar-a-Lago than there is of the McConnell Senate voting to
>remove Trump from office. The Senate will acquit him within
>days.

You act like removal is what everyone is hooking their horses to. It's not.

>
>>it seems there's two camps in the impeachment
>>discussion
>>those who think that unless it results in the senate voting
>to
>>impeach...
>>it's not worth doing, regardless of the extent of the
>>president's criminality
>>the second camp argues that impeachment is a process of
>>holding the presidency accountable
>>letting *this* president go scott-free would mean that the
>>president is above the law
>>that would set a dangerous precedent
>>im in the latter camp.
>
>This is an over-simplification as I (and many others) are in
>neither of those camps.
>
>I and many others have said that this President *been*
>should've been impeached. But if we're going to issue
>articles of impeachment - go *all in*. Pelosi and the Dem
>leaders decided to issue articles of impeachment on some of
>the weaker offenses of this President - wholly ignoring his
>war crimes and violations of the War Powers Resolution and
>other constitutional improprieties.

Yes, we shouldn't impeach because it's a fruitless endeavor but we should impeach on unimpeachable offenses vs. actual impeachable offenses.

>
>Had they gone all in and issued articles that detail his most
>egregious crimes and lawlessness (like veto'ing the rare
>bi-partisan condemnation of U.S. support for the Saudi-led
>genocide in Yemen, for example) - then we'd be in a much
>better place right now - *especially* now given the
>predictable trajectory of this President where most knew he'd
>eventually commit an act of war to goad Iran without
>Congressional authorization.

So he should have been impeached over vetoing a bipartisan condemnation of the Saudi-led genocide in Yemen?

Since the McConnell Senate is going to acquit him in days why would additional articles or moving up the timeline matter? How exactly would that put us in a better place?

>
>That we wholly ignored this when proposing impeachment was
>gross incompetence and a lack of courage and vision by the
>Democratic leadership - which isn't surprising but no less
>enraging.

That's beyond rich coming from such an ardent Tulsi supporter. Who courageously wanted to issue a 'stunning rebuke' of the president on the eve of the impeachment vote to avoid having to vote on impeachment. Then instead of being 'courageous' and voting no, she voted....'Present'. Such courage, such vision.

By the way, can you kindly sources for your claim that only Bernie and Tulsi voted against the NDAA and its 3 previous incarnations?

EDIT: I'm not asking to be an asshole

>There is more likelihood of Trump & Rouhani playing golf at
>Mar-a-Lago than there is of the McConnell Senate voting to
>remove Trump from office. The Senate will acquit him within
>days.

i'm not exactly sure why you want to argue semantics.
my usage of probably does imply that given the current state of events i *don't* think he will be removed.
that qualification matters (to me, at least)


>This is an over-simplification as I (and many others) are in
>neither of those camps.

so are you saying you are in the camp of, 'unless we were willing to impeach him on everything, we shouldn't have bothered?
if you want to add that as a third category... ok.
i don't see it as that, tbh, i would put it in the first
(the assumption that it results in.. the senate voting to impeach.)
the only modifier here is that *adding* more articles or whatever will somehow strengthen the case for/probability of impeachment
i disagree... we would still have the same actors that have signaled they are ok with all this, including the utter incompetence
and have put forth all their bad faith arguments
i've been very much in the 'throw everything including the kitchen table' camp
but at the core of all this is that i see impeachment as valid- whether it is *one* or *multiple* articles brought forward.
and whether it is politically expedient or not (and have said as much before)

but... i was responding to trinity's post
i'm not here to argue impeachment (there's an entire post where we all put our perspectives on the table - that's where i drew my conclusions on the two sides of this coin.)

>so are you saying you are in the camp of, 'unless we were
>willing to impeach him on everything, we shouldn't have
>bothered?
>if you want to add that as a third category... ok.
>i don't see it as that, tbh, i would put it in the first
>(the assumption that it results in.. the senate voting to
>impeach.)

No - my argument is that if we are going to introduce articles of impeachment, we should make the strongest argument and encompass Trump's most egregious crimes and constitutional improprieties in the articles presented. Perhaps you felt that the Ukraine call quid pro quo was the most egregious offense of this President. I do not.

Again, this President is a walking impeachment offender - but there were voices in Congress calling for more substantive articles to be introduced to prevent this very thing we're talking about here from happening (unilateral, executive military action without congressional authorization) - so that's why we're talking about this vis-à-vis impeachment.

But all good - no need for us to get caught in another circle.


-->

to expel the american military from their country. thats happened with no other country.

thats all you need to know about how the iraqis feel about the assassination.

claiming that iraqis were celebrating his assassination sounds like youre getting your perspective from cherrypicked videos from mike pompeo of like 12 iraqi college students.
https://twitter.com/SecPompeo/status/1212955403077767168

meanwhile *millions* of people in the region are mourning him.


>What nobody is reporting on or bothering to mention is that
>Soleimani also was instrumental in stomping out ISIS in both
>Syria & Iraq - and countering insurgent Saudi extremist groups
>that were responsible for the rise of al-qaeda & ISIS.

damn near everyone is mentioning this. its why he had such admiration in the region. so much admiration that he was entrusted as the point man on a de-escalation plan with us, iraq, iran, and saudi arabia as prospective signees.

i like how said he was responsible for chaos *after* stomping out isis. do you know how chaotic iraq was *before* isis was neutralized? you dont think iraqis appreciated his work on that front?

And Pompeo should be standing trial for his participation in this war crime.

I'm not at all referring to his non-sense. We have to understand what the Iraqi protests have been about for the past few months. The young people on the ground have been protesting this Iraqi parliament, its President and the Prime-Minister. Why? Because they are selling out the Iraqi people and have been essentially co-opted by Iran.

That's why there were 9 *Iraqi* militiamen killed with Soleimani at Baghdad airport. That's why Soleimani was there - because he has played a major role in stomping out ISIS in Iraq.

This is messy, multi-layered madness fam.

So just because the Iraqi *people* were no fan of Soleimani doesn't mean that they are also happy to see the U.S. there. Iraqis want everyone TF out of their country: Iran, the U.S., Saudi Arabia: everyone.

>i like how said he was responsible for chaos *after* stomping
>out isis. do you know how chaotic iraq was *before* isis was
>neutralized? you dont think iraqis appreciated his work on
>that front?

Fam my partner is from Baghdad and she was one of the lucky ones who were able to escape after the 2003 invasion. I regularly speak with actual people on the ground in Iraq and have been for years. It's a complicated mess with multiple narratives taking place simultaneously.

Multiple things can be true at the same time, namely:

*Soleimani was beloved and is basically a Che like figure in Iran
*He rooted out ISIS and Saudi extremist proxies in Iraq & Syria
*He and Iran had exerted major influence in the post-war Iraq government - and in many ways controlled that government
*The young people in Iraq are very upset with that same government
*The people in Iraq have been sacrificed a collateral for proxy wars for decades, and have rarely been considered as we pontificate in geo-political conversations without ever really taking stock of their precious lives.


-->

whats the word with them iraqi women? your girl got an sisters/cousins?

>whats the word with them iraqi women? your girl got an
>sisters/cousins?

She does - but all are spoken for my G lol.

-->

https://twitter.com/MMFlint/status/1212955713305272321?s=20

I can't get beyond the irony of Trump in a tuxedo on NYE at his resort, half-drunk, dining with billionaires and just probably getting a text like "yea let's bomb iran idgaf lol" ---

Yet this is the guy so many Americans swear is "against the Establishment" lol.

-->

that they have serve under a racist criminal enrages me

d

Namely his second term - this is the culmination of a multi-decade, bi-partisan consensus/plan set forth decades ago by the Foreign Policy Establishment to destabilize and ultimately re-structure the Middle-East to suit the interests of the U.S., Israel & Saudi Arabia - and it's been disastrous for all parties involved - especially the innocent civilians in Iraq & Syria.

General Wesley Clark revealed this over a decade ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv87ekPeIuk



-->

hasn't varied much since the 20th century.
This isn't a Trump thing; this is an America thing, and we keep falling for the shit over and over again

We treat that place like shit

...piss it away right into the pockets of the military industrial complex and the mega wealthy who profit from war

this is how the rich keep getting richer and fuck the rest of us

d

He believes it will boost his popularity/legacy


For a while it looked like it would be NK.


I do wonder what MAGA types think about this but then again I don't have the stomach for it...

I don't know about that.

I honestly don't think Trump wants to start a war he has had all the war dogs around him and fired them when they don't get their way. I think his arm is being twisted with this impeachment.

Next to massive, vocal opposition by regular American people, process seems like the best way to do this. But I'm happy to see their introduction of the bill uses the moral language of the former rather than the kinda wilty language of the latter. Making this about Trump's process hypothetically legitimizes war, and the administration will happily continue that discussion.

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/476738-sanders-khanna-introduce-legislation-to-block-funding-for-a-war-with-iran

Sanders, Khanna introduce legislation to block funding for a war with Iran
BY TAL AXELROD - 01/03/20 08:01 PM EST

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) on Friday introduced legislation that would block funding for any offensive military force in or against Iran without prior congressional authorization.

The legislation from the lawmakers, two of the most progressive members of their respective chambers, came after the U.S. launched an airstrike in Baghdad that killed Qassem Soleimani, Iran’s top general. The attack, and Tehran’s vows of retaliation, sparked fears that the already combustible situation in the Middle East could lead to a war between the U.S. and Iran.

“Today, we are seeing a dangerous escalation that brings us closer to another disastrous war in the Middle East," the lawmakers said in a statement. "A war with Iran could cost countless lives and trillions more dollars and lead to even more deaths, more conflict, more displacement in that already highly volatile region of the world.

“At a time when we face the urgent need to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, to build the housing we desperately need, and to address the existential crisis of climate change, we as a nation must get our priorities right,” they added. “We must invest in the needs of the American people, not spend trillions more on endless wars.”

The legislation to restrict funds for military action against Iran was passed last year in the House but was later stripped from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) adopted by Congress last month.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) also introduced a privileged resolution Friday that would require any hostilities with Iran to be explicitly authorized by a congressional declaration of war or a specific authorization for the use of military force.

The airstrike killing Soleimani has sharply divided Congress, with Republican allies of the president lauding the attack and Democrats saying the White House would need congressional authorization for any broader military action against Iran.

“The president does not have the authority for a war with Iran,” Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the Senate floor Friday. “If he plans a large increase in troops and potential hostility over a longer time, the administration will require congressional approval and the approval of the American people.”

Trump defended the strike against Soleimani on Friday, saying the Iranian general was responsible for the killing or wounding of “thousands” of Americans and was “plotting to kill many more.”

The Iranian general, a long-feared adversary, was in charge of directing Iranian proxies across the Middle East, including several Shiite militias in Iraq.

at least stateside, we are unlikely to see bombs, but ISIS is a factor. they may take advantage of this opportunity to do more shit

regardless, we're fucked and its only a matter of time until our very way of life is completely disrupted on all levels.

we better get prepared.

d

in case of a cyberattack where i can't access my money online or at ATMs...

is that too paranoid?

is anything too paranoid nowadays?

we're slaves to electronics and wifi...just look at Kashmir :(

d

That's doing too much.

that's not too much right?

d

>that's not too much right?
>


No, it's not.

https://twitter.com/olgaNYC1211/status/1213638972930502656?s=20

prolly not the best time to try and ask a favor unfortunately

Why not focus on what we can do with the present one?

.

Hopefully they hit those first and hopefully the residents within have the wherewithal to know that they should evacuate those properties ASAP.

Latinos for Trump, Asians for Trump, log cabin Republicans, and corn fed mayonnaise eating, dog kissing, invest partaking, flag bearing, 9/11 as a prop using, dog walking, gun rights supporting, coal mining white Trump supporters are to blame.

Thought this would happen earlier.. Does this move up the impeachment process?

to concentrate on threats from iran.

https://twitter.com/axios/status/1213853604416774146

iran just announced it is completely withdrawing from the jcpoa nuclear deal

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1213905530168721408


republican presidents fuck up the whole world and make americans less safe. every dem should be repeating that bumper sticker.

with the iraqi pm. a move that trump asked the iraqi pm to facilitate.

https://twitter.com/janearraf/status/1213823941321592834

the fact that soleimani even entertained it after the events right before his assassination shows good faith on his part.

trump is a fucking idiot.

https://twitter.com/KhaledBeydoun/status/1213898149061910530?s=20

It's hard for us to put scale to the significance of Soleimani to the Iranian people. Born in the midst of the Iraq/Iran war - his entire life has been spent resisting outside invaders from America, Saudi Arabia & Israel. He's been a military genius and a golden symbol of resilience and resistance for Iran. It's hard to draw an analogy to one of our great generals or leaders - namely because we really don't have someone of similar stature who is beloved to our people like Soleimani is to Iranians - but this would be like a foreign country assassinating General Patton.

I haven't had a bad gut feeling like this since 9/11 and the subsequent 2003 Iraq War lie/crime. This goes beyond just utter stupidity and incompetence (both of which plague Trump and his administration) - but I fear it's far more sinister than that. They want war.
-->

>I haven't had a bad gut feeling like this since 9/11 and the
>subsequent 2003 Iraq War lie/crime. This goes beyond just
>utter stupidity and incompetence (both of which plague Trump
>and his administration) - but I fear it's far more sinister
>than that. They want war.
War gets votes (for the most part).

I doubt it will get more votes THIS time around. But the strategy here is to try to rally the country around Trump on some bogus BS. Hopefully the majority of people see through the BS

None of these cats want to lose their positions. That's why it's party over country.

What Trump and Repubs did on this is ridiculous. My neighbor just finished a tour in Afghanistan 3 months ago and she's nervous as hell that she has to get redeployed to this shit...her literal words to me is that I didn't sign up for this insanity

https://twitter.com/AmirAminiMD/status/1213828930458804224

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1213967546761785345
------
New *deep dive* on Soleimani killing --> Pompeo spoke to Trump about hitting the top commander months ago. Getting Trump to “yes” involved key personnel changes at the Pentagon and Trump’s aversion to being viewed as weak, giving Pompeo an opening

https://t.co/5L1FmL1xWV
------

first they were saying the pentagon presented the assassination to trump because it was so extreme that they thought it would make him take one of the more reasonable options.
https://twitter.com/KBAndersen/status/1213663996152340481

now they are saying he was methodically persuaded by a long game plot by iran hardliner pompeo.

Before World War 2, America and Iran were strong allies. Iran viewed
America in a different light than it viewed the UK And Russia, who were constantly trying to control Iran. Russia even invaded Iran at one point.

However, it was soon discovered that America ran covert CIA operations for the UK to dethrone the prime mister of Iran and to install the Shah. This of course was done to control the resources of IRAN and to keep the country out of the hands of communists. From that point on Iranians started to view america as the enemy ( and rightfully so). The shah was a puppet ruler for america, and he brutalized many civilians of the country. He allowed america to drain the country of its resources, and america provided military assistance to protect his rulership.

Even president carter showed great support for the Shah, which angered the people of iran. When the Shah was coup'd by rebel forces,and he fled to america, america refused to hand him over to Iran. The iranian people wanted the shah to face his crimes in court. Since america refused to negotiate, the US Embassy was attacked and several americans were held hostage..

And since then, there has been major conflict and resistance between both sides, all because Iran refuses to be a controlled state.

One thing I want to point out which is hilarious. America helped Iran start its Nuclear weapons Program back in 1957. lol. I bullshit you not. They provided financing, material and intelligence. This is when america was controlling the country of course. But now Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapons program, and they need to stop with Uranium Enriching...It's comical

Anyway, I'm american, but the cruel and brutal actions of america on other sovereignties are truly hard to swallow. I'm not sure if I even care about this current conflict because I know the history and backstory behind all of it.

https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/iran-contra-affair

Via crack/cocaine being pumped into black communities.

It's interesting how both sides are in alignment when it comes to the abuse of people of African (possibly northeast African) descent

This is 100 percent truth, and most people don’t even know it.

Congress wasn’t giving Reagan shit to support his war efforts. So he sold guns to pay the contras, and Latin Americans were allowed to push crack, cocaine into America for helping to keep Russia out of Central America, as well as using those drug sales to support his was.

>

https://c8.alamy.com/comp/H8CJYE/50-united-states-colored-in-republican-red-democrat-blue-and-displaying-H8CJYE.jpg

And fuck! at #20. Shit pops off we coming to crash at your place. You in a blue state, right?

there hasn't been even one republican going on record on what his opinion on this entire thing is (including the threat to attack cultural institutions)
(except for idiots like graham... and cruz, i think).
also, haven't heard anything about the decision to send an additional 3,000 troops to kuwait.


its quite something to observe.

He's been thirsting for war with Iran for decades, and his entire purpose as National Security Adviser to Trump was to push for regime-change in Iran.

If he testifies, he needs to answer (under oath) as to whether his newfound willingness to testify has been conditioned (in any way) on Trump striking Iran.
-->

Bolton has gotta be salivating at what's going down right now.

The thought has crossed my mind whether he would be willing to clear 45 of any wrongdoing (under oath!) in order to push this escalation forward.

https://twitter.com/NTarnopolsky/status/1214249290303987713
---------
#Breaking: Full Netanyahu statement to security cabinet meeting. "The assassination of Soleimani isn't an Israeli event but an American event. We were not involved and should not be dragged into it."
---------

complete shambles.

its hard to notice because of the all of the chaos swirling around...but team trump quietly dropped the 'imminent danger' line of rationale for the assassination. which means they know folks arent gonna tow that line without someone snitching.

You believe that shit?

America said the same thing when the UK and Soviet Union wanted to conquer Iran. They said They sided with Iran , but discreetly supporting UK efforts.

One thing is always certain the UK, Israel and the USA sail in the same boat.

and really - most of the media that's angled at us.

Bibi is doing damage control here. This disastrous blunder may very well prosecuted as war crimes -- lots of backtracking right now by those central to this.

The only two nations we consulted with prior to striking Iran were Israel & Saudi Arabia.

Netanyahu's statement immediately following the strike:

“Israel has the right to self-defense. The US has the exact same right. Soleimani is responsible for the death of American citizens and many other innocent people,” Netanyahu said moments before taking off from Athens back to Israel.

Iran’s General “was about to initiate additional attacks and President Trump deserves every bit of praise for acting with great determination and speed,” Netanyahu added.

Exact same talking points as the Trump administration. They were lockstep on this.
-->

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENpUu3kWwAEh2EO?format=jpg&name=large

-->

Trump admin. has blocked Zarif (Iranian Foreign Minister/Chief Diplomat) from traveling to NY to address the U.N.

These cats are scared to debate at the U.N. because they already know they're lying and can't win on the merits lol.

The American brand is trash right now.

-->

https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-george-lopez-trump-20200107-fl2tjdhmlzbl5bgxzcvpbjh7cu-story.html


Yeah, George is wrong...








...we'll take the whole 80.

>https://www.nydailynews.com/snyde/ny-george-lopez-trump-20200107-fl2tjdhmlzbl5bgxzcvpbjh7cu-story.html
>
>
>Yeah, George is wrong...

lol.

Hahaha.

always with their cancel culture


when will cons lighten up?

Pompeo: "Trump May Have Been Sent By God To Save Israel"

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47670717

Like, this is real life. We always point to Iran and Saudi Arabia as being regimes inspired by religious fundamentalism - but both Netanyahu and Trump's governments are laden with sensationalism and fundamentalism, as well. Pence & Pompeo represent extreme forms of evangelical prophecy; obsessed with the Holy Wars and end-times.

-->

I just read this

https://www.thedailybeast.com/attacking-trump-tower-would-iran-be-that-reckless?ref=home

And I think the answer to the question in the title is, Yes, it would be too wreckless. I also think the scenario in the article is too "fighting the last war". Taking out a tower seems a bit blase considering what we've seen the Russians do during the last election.

It seems the 2020 way the Iranians can hurt Trump is if they go after Trump individually and in the area where he is most vulnerable, his money.

Trump is the richest president we have ever had and we are seeing all sorts of ways that he has taken advantage of that. But we really haven't seen all the ways that it makes him vulnerable.

If the Iranians waged a smart war on Trump they could use cyberhacking and oil money to financially ruin him. Buy Trump tower and turn it into a homeless shelter. Buy up his debt. Make people scared to live or do business with trump businesses. Share financial records. I mean people who really spend their time thinking about cyberhacking and disinformation campaigns can come up with all sorts of ways to hurt trump financially right?

And the part that makes it super saavy is if they keep it limited to Trump and only do financial harm, You'd have tons of Americans who would be supporting it right? Same way people didn't care about how the Russians undermine HRC?

We could end up with a proxy war between Russian back Pro-trump forces and Iranian backed anti-trump forces working to rig the 2020 election. SMH.

I want to go back to the 1990s when things were simpler.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

I just read this

https://www.thedailybeast.com/attacking-trump-tower-would-iran-be-that-reckless?ref=home

And I think the answer to the question in the title is, Yes, it would be too wreckless. I also think the scenario in the article is too "fighting the last war". Taking out a tower seems a bit blase considering what we've seen the Russians do during the last election.

It seems the 2020 way the Iranians can hurt Trump is if they go after Trump individually and in the area where he is most vulnerable, his money.

Trump is the richest president we have ever had and we are seeing all sorts of ways that he has taken advantage of that. But we really haven't seen all the ways that it makes him vulnerable.

If the Iranians waged a smart war on Trump they could use cyberhacking and oil money to financially ruin him. Buy Trump tower and turn it into a homeless shelter. Buy up his debt. Make people scared to live or do business with trump businesses. Share financial records. I mean people who really spend their time thinking about cyberhacking and disinformation campaigns can come up with all sorts of ways to hurt trump financially right?

And the part that makes it super saavy is if they keep it limited to Trump and only do financial harm, You'd have tons of Americans who would be supporting it right? Same way people didn't care about how the Russians undermine HRC?

We could end up with a proxy war between Russian back Pro-trump forces and Iranian backed anti-trump forces working to rig the 2020 election. SMH.

I want to go back to the 1990s when things were simpler.



**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson

"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"

Al-Asad Air Base being hit with rockets right now

https://www.reddit.com/r/Military/comments/eljhzy/active_alasad_air_base_being_hit_with_rockets/

.

like, aren’t there some kind of radars we could be watching...

So even if you see them there not a lot you can do.

like, how air traffic controllers can see planes. then we can blast it...

nm

Politics aside, please just chill.

>Politics aside, please just chill.

There's nothing in the man's past EVER that would EVER suggest this is the remotest of possibilities.

We're fucked and every single Republican - even Rand Paul are squarely to blame.

And if you know ANYONE that was an Obama/Trump voter then tell them, from me, to fucking eat shit. Thanks in advance.

If there's a price for the US to pay I'm still hoping it will only have a detrimental impact on his supporters.

Why should those of us with no part in this madness suffer because of a warped cultures ignorance and depravity?

a lot of people may not remember...but one of the 1st military actions trump took when he came in office was to drop the 'mother of all bombs' in afghanistan for no reason at all other than displaying its destructive power.

he said all through his campaign that he wanted to use nukes. there are clips of him going back to 80s/90s with him pushing for using nukes. dude is fascinated with nukes. and now he has the opportunity to use them.

i usually just read what he said. dudes complementing iran and saying he wants to see it prosper.


looks like at least hes not trying to escalate so thats good.

he's calling kinkis

Surprise: he's pretty psyched about all this.

I don't hate myself quite enough to post an NRO article here, but it's really heartening to see that the Iraq War band is having a reunion tour. This is what happens when we try to simply move on after the United States does something horrific across the world. We get the same idiots and ghouls selling us the same lies repackaged for a different war. It's not one of the primary emotions we should have about all of this, but it's incredibly insulting.

Being in DC for this sucks too, because this is the center of the "I'm a serious, nuanced thinker" culture. So folks feel like we have to have a carefully crafted opinion about Soleimani or our relationship with Iran or middle east policy. We don't. We've been fucking with these countries for all of this century and a good chunk of the last one and it's never, ever worked. People who try to wring their hands and explain how complex this is should be laughed at openly. Journalists who supported the Iraq war should be ridiculed and ostracized. Politicians who voted for the Iraq war or who express anything but utter contempt for this bullshit should be considered fundamentally unqualified for your vote.

<People who try to wring their hands and explain
>how complex this is should be laughed at openly. Journalists
>who supported the Iraq war should be ridiculed and ostracized.
>Politicians who voted for the Iraq war or who express anything
>but utter contempt for this bullshit should be considered
>fundamentally unqualified for your vote.

Exactly. And it really should be that cut & dry.


-->

Getting real close to a BINGO here. Important question though: does Liz Cheney inherit her father's square or do we have to wait for him to weigh in? Or is it just a free space anyhow?

All of these NeoCon artists have been in hiding. The audacity of them to limp out of their caves on this is crazy.

Wolfowitz should be standing trial.
-->

I'm not gonna watch the video because fuck this monster, but the headline here promises a pretty entertaining position: last time was good, actually.

I would consider changing my support for any Democratic candidate that explicitly promises to round up these shitheads and send them to the Hague.

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-business/fox-business-iraq-war-architect-paul-wolfowitz-defends-us-occupation-iraq

>I would consider changing my support for any Democratic
>candidate that explicitly promises to round up these shitheads
>and send them to the Hague.

This is going to be an essential step towards American redemption and reconciliation with the world - that is - if we ever want to regain credibility abroad.


-->

When Jon Chait wrecks you for being an amoral triangulator, you've officially reached the final page of your political choose-your-own-adventure. Joe Lieberman, retire.

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/01/joe-lieberman-democrats-support-trump-iran-war.html

THE NATIONAL INTEREST JAN. 6, 2020
Joe Lieberman Sad Democrats Aren’t Supporting Trump’s Iran War
By Jonathan Chait

President Trump’s sudden, massive escalation of the military conflict with Iran has freaked out large segments of the national-security Establishment. But one person who is not worried at all is Joe Lieberman, once the Democrats’ vice-presidential candidate, currently a lobbyist for a Chinese telecommunications firm, and, as always, deeply concerned that “his” party is failing to line up behind the right wing of the Republican Party on a high-risk foreign-policy venture.

Lieberman’s argument, laid out in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today, will only come as a surprise to those laboring under the impression that his “thoughtful” manner implies actual thought. He begins by fretting that the parties disagree on Trump’s Iran strategy. “It’s understandable that the political class should have questions about it,” he concedes, “But it isn’t understandable that all the questions are being raised by Democrats and all the praise is coming from Republicans.”

In fact, it’s hardly true that “all the questions” about Trump’s policy are coming from Democrats — many members of Trump’s own administration have registered their intense dismay in the media at his policy, which has likely only gone through because Republican officials like James Mattis are no longer around to block it. Even if it was true, though, Lieberman doesn’t hold both parties equally responsible for disagreeing with each other. Instead, he proceeds immediately to blaming Democrats for failing to agree with Republicans:

After World War II, Sen. Arthur Vandenberg, a Michigan Republican who was chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, formed a bipartisan partnership with President Truman that helped secure the postwar peace and greatly strengthened America’s position in the Cold War. “Politics stops at the water’s edge,” said Vandenberg when asked why he worked so closely with a Democratic president. He added that his fellow Americans undoubtedly had “earnest, honest, even vehement” differences of opinion on foreign policy, but if “we can keep partisan politics out of foreign affairs, it is entirely obvious that we shall speak with infinitely greater authority abroad.”

In their uniformly skeptical or negative reactions to Soleimani’s death, Democrats are falling well below Vandenberg’s standard and, I fear, creating the risk that the U.S. will be seen as acting and speaking with less authority abroad at this important time.

Ah, so the “Vandenberg standard” is that Congress has to support the president’s foreign policy. Oddly, however, the Vandenberg standard fails to apply to Democratic presidents. Indeed, the last time we had a Democratic president, Republicans undermined his diplomatic strategy with Iran to the point of sending the Iranians a letter warning that they would refuse to uphold the agreement their president had made. This sabotage campaign did not concern Lieberman, who at the time was too busy forming a group lobbying against Obama’s diplomacy to notice that the sacred Vandenberg standard was being broached.

After bemoaning Democrats for their partisanship, he takes on the concern raised by Trump’s critics that killing Qasem Soleimani will “provoke a violent response.” (Lieberman does not bother to list other downsides of the killing, such as undermining Iran’s domestic opposition, infuriating Iraq’s government, freezing the campaign against ISIS, and alienating NATO allies, all of which have happened already.) Lieberman responds that we can’t worry our pretty little heads about what Iranians, or any foreign country, will do in response to something like killing their second-most-powerful person: “If we allow fear of a self-declared enemy like Iran to dictate our actions, we will only encourage them to come after us and our allies more aggressively.” Lieberman insists the killing will instead “diminish the chances of a wider conflict” by giving the Iranians “much to fear.”

Will the Iranians decide to cooperate with Trump rather than carry out the revenge they are loudly vowing to undertake? Conceivably. But Lieberman’s track record of predicting the course of this relationship is not encouraging. He has previously insisted, in 2018, that tearing up the Iran nuclear deal will make Iran “come back to the table and negotiate a total denuclearization,” and again, last year, that “history has shown that the best peaceful way to force a malevolent Tehran to change its behavior is to hit their bottom line.”

Somehow, Iran is acting in a way contrary to all the lessons Lieberman has drawn from history. Rather than backing down, it is lashing out. But Lieberman is confident that this latest escalation will do the trick.

Lieberman concludes his argument in a blaze of insinuation. In this incredible sequence of sentences, Lieberman floats the charge that Democrats really just hate using force against any bad guy anywhere. (He does not note that this charge is belied by events as recent as Democratic support for the killing of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.) He then takes care to say he personally does not believe this, but that people are saying it anyway:

It is possible that anti-Trump partisanship isn’t behind Democrats’ reluctance to say they’re glad Soleimani is dead. It may be that today’s Democratic Party simply doesn’t believe in the use of force against America’s enemies in the world. I don’t believe that is true, but episodes like this one may lead many Americans to wonder whether it is.

Is it possible Joe Lieberman is being paid by his Chinese clients to support every Trump foreign-policy maneuver, however reckless, because China wishes to undermine American power? I don’t believe this is true, but episodes like this Lieberman op-ed will lead many Americans to wonder if it is.

he stays doing this shit

is it on purpose or does he just keep getting reined back in?

Like, I don't think hes saying in his head, this is exactly how its gonna play out, but hes touched and at least part of him thinks there's no difference between this and the apprentice

>is it on purpose or does he just keep getting reined back
>in?
>
>

damn shame

and try to stall the handover

What's up with Iran?
Along similar lines, are we still standing for Hong Kong?

that set of this entire chain of events in the region?

https://twitter.com/ilangoldenberg/status/1225745074551771138 (thread)

this is what led to u.s. killing iran backed militia fighters, the attack on our embassy, the soleimani assassination, the base bombing injured mad american soldiers, and the accidental shooting down of a commercial plane.

and we might have blamed the wrong culprits? jesus.

>this is what led to u.s. killing iran backed militia fighters,
>the attack on our embassy, the soleimani assassination, the
>base bombing injured mad american soldiers, and the accidental
>shooting down of a commercial plane.
>
>and we might have blamed the wrong culprits? jesus.

There is so much deception and propaganda driving this power-struggle in the MidEast. This should be front and center to our national conversation right now.


-->

or just flat out inventing intelligence and lying to justify a predetermined course of action.

i hate that these mfs can be completely corrupt and just say whatever they want without producing *any* data/evidence to back it up...and their voters are just completely cool with it.

theintercept used to be all over shit like this when obama was in office.

>theintercept used to be all over shit like this when obama was
>in office.

They still are. A look at their headlines on National Security/Foreign Affairs shows essentially every other article going at Trump's disastrous FP:

https://theintercept.com/national-security/


-->